1. Field of the Invention
Embodiments of the invention relate to systems, machines, and methods for tracking movement. More specifically, embodiments of the present invention relate to a real-time tracking system for processing location data from tracking devices deployed in a marine environment.
2. Description of the Related Art
During an oil spill emergency, responders need to know two essential facts upfront: (1) the exact location and size of the oil slick, and (2) the potential impact of the slick on industrial facilities and sensitive environmental areas. These facts are monitored throughout the duration of the emergency to plan oil containment and recovery efforts, and monitor the effectiveness of the response efforts. Currently, oil spill responders gain this information through visual observations and verbal radio reports from in-field support vessels, plus periodical aircraft flyovers. This approach is subjective and has some fundamental limitations—especially at night when visibility is effectively zero. Storms and severe offshore weather conditions can also restrict the deployment of helicopters and pollution control assets, while at the same time, accelerating the movement of the oil slick via stronger sea currents.
Along with visual observations, oil spill responders make extensive use of computerized oil slick trajectory models. These simulate the expected movement and fate of the oil based on complex mathematical calculations, scientific assumptions and weather forecasts. Although these models are useful tools, they can never correctly estimate the actual or true path of the oil, due to limitations in both the mathematical models and the weather and sea-state forecasts. Although scientific prediction helps with “best-guess” tactical planning, the reality of the oil slick's dispersion is what matters.
Previous attempts to monitor oil slicks have utilized rigid and heavy, industrially-fabricated floatation buoys to house electronic tracking devices, such as those described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,481,904 (Fleck, 1996), and U.S. Pat. No. 5,654,692 (Baxter, 1997). Additionally, maritime government agencies and academic institutes have experimented with floating tracking buoys for over 3 decades. For example, in 1994, Goodman and Beatty empirically field tested different combinations of floating buoys and electronics packages (see Ron H. Goodman, Debra Simecek-Beatty, and Don Hodgins, Tracking Buoys for Oil Spills, International Oil Spill Conference (1994) available at http://iosc.org/papers/02212.pdf). Similarly, Garcia-Ladona et.al (2002) tested different “surface drifting floats” to monitor and predict the movement of the Prestige oil slick off the North Western Spanish Coast (see Garcia-Ladona, Font et al The use of surface drifting floats in the monitoring of oil spills: the Prestige case, International Oil Spill Conference (2005) available at wvvw.iosc.org/papers_posters/IOSC%202005%20a367.pdf). The goal in all cases is to create a device that will float at the same velocity and direction as the oil. In reality, none of these devices has achieved the goal. The monitors used in the prior art have been large rigid, industrially fabricated floating buoys that project a significant amount of surface area above the water level. This surface area results in significant aerodynamic wind forces that cause such buoys to have velocities and directions different than that of the sea surface or oil spilled into the sea.
The prior art has employed expensive, bulky transponders such as ARGOS. Beyond the physical limitations of such buoys, the cost has been a barrier to mainstreaming tracking buoys into the oil spill responder's ‘tool kit’. These prior art spill tracking devices had limited value beyond oil spill tracking due to their size, weight and cost.
The software interfaces and data flows used in the prior art have been limited. The raw data has typically been transmitted from the floating device and sent directly to a scientist or technician's laptop computer, where it has been interpreted and made into custom one-off map diagrams. These maps have then been relayed to stakeholders via email or PowerPoint presentations. It is an ad hoc, “grass-roots” approach to communication and decision-making which leads to errors and time delays.